can someone explain in more detail the concept of emptiness? I read that it meant recognizing the world is empty of inherent existence and that with this realization one can see that their attachments to things are empty.

"A silver birdflies over the autumn lake. When it has passed, the lake's surface does not tryto hold on to the image of the bird."

All things are compounded (composed of smaller parts) and does not exist from it's own side.Eg. A table is composed of legs, drawers, top etc. Take them apart and what we think of a table is nothing more than a combo of legs, tops put together in a certain way. So a table is just a convenient name or label. Even the parts themselves are compounded and so it goes.

If I were to say : 'Monks, whatsoever in the world . . . . of gods and men whatsoever is seen . . . . . by the mind all that I do not 1 know' it would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say : 'I both know it and know it not' that too would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say : 'I neither know it nor am ignorant of it' it would be a fault in me.

Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer.

He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.

He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one who senses.

He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathàgata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed and cognized, is 'Such'. Moreover, than he who is 'Such', there is none other greater or more excellent, I declare.

Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to, is esteemed as truth by other folk,

Midst those who are entrenched in their own views being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.

This barb I beheld, well in advance, whereon mankind is hooked, impaled,

'I know, I see `tis verily so'---- no such clinging for the Tathàgatas.

Kalakarama Sutta

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

Here is another example of the Buddha pointing out that there are no beings(things). The sandcastle is the simile for emptiness of "things".

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

Satta Sutta

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

There is all because there is no-thing.If there would be somethink, there would be nothing.

Like Pegembara said, if we watch deeper and deeper in fenomenas, in mater, to the very begining, we will not find this begining, there will be no end. Why? Because all fenomenas are conditioned, are made by others, wich are made by others, etc... Cicle of existance.

So if at the very begining there would be some very first element, world would not be lead by logic, by dependence of fenomenas, by chain of cause and effects. In this kind of world there woul be no order, but chaos. Why? Because if only one fenomena can exist without condition, who apear by itself, spontaneously, so all others fenomenas can apear spontaneously at the same time, everywhere, in all posibilities. It's a chaos. But there is order.

Thants why there is all because there is no-thing.If there would be somethnikg, there would be nothing.

nrose619 wrote:can someone explain in more detail the concept of emptiness? I read that it meant recognizing the world is empty of inherent existence and that with this realization one can see that their attachments to things are empty.

As a doctrinal term, emptiness (adj. sunna, noun sunnata) in and of itself is used in a couple of different but related ways in Pali Canon. In one context, emptiness is used as a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience that's utilized in meditation (e.g., MN 121, MN 122).

In another context, emptiness refers to the insubstantiality of the five clinging-aggregates and the six sense media (e.g., SN 22.95, SN 35.85). In this sense, it's synonymous with not-self, or as Richard Gombrich sums it up in What the Buddha Thought, the idea that,"'Nothing in the world has an unchanging essence', or 'There is nothing in our normal experience that never changes'" (9).

All in all, I think that the teachings on emptiness can be a useful tool in the removal of attachment or clinging (upadana). For more on the practicalities of how, I recommend checking out the two suttas mentioned above, as well as seconding santa100's recommendation of "Emptiness" and "The Integrity of Emptiness" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

SN 35.85Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."

nrose619 wrote:can someone explain in more detail the concept of emptiness? I read that it meant recognizing the world is empty of inherent existence and that with this realization one can see that their attachments to things are empty.

The concept is intended as a medium for consciousness, for cultivation of consciousness to prepare its subsidence. Consciousness perpetuates itself through grasping itself by means of identification as "I" and appropriation as "mine" and deluded objectification of itself as "is" and "is not". The nature of consciousness does not allow itself to recognize itself, its own nature, it does not allow to recognize its conscious objects as mere ideas not bearing any truth and not belonging to any self. The concept of "emptiness" is meant/intended to counter this nature of consciousness which however necessarily will fail. Why? Because as a concept it appeals to consciousness and entails thinking about, deluded determination as "is" and "is not" and thus actually entails nothing but cultivation of consciousness but not its subsidence.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. ... Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

DAWN wrote:SN 35.85Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."

There are no-things in the world. All are compounded and insubstantial ie. empty of any substance (soullessness/anatta)

No-self not no selfNo-eye not no eyeno-ear ............no-nose ...........

no-consciousness not no consciousness

No-I, no-me not no I, no me. Since there is no-I, there is nothing that I can cling to as mine.

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

SN 35.80"Ignorance, monk, is the one thing with whose abandoning in a monk ignorance is abandoned and clear knowing arises." [1]

"But how does a monk know, how does a monk see, so that ignorance is abandoned and clear knowing arises?"

"There is the case, monk, where a monk has heard, 'All things are unworthy of attachment.' Having heard that all things are unworthy of attachment, he directly knows every thing. Directly knowing every thing, he comprehends every thing. Comprehending every thing, he sees all themes[2] as something separate. [3]